>> that's right there. >> thank you. >> maybe we should hear from the department. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. i had the opportunity to review the plans the permit holder provided before the hearing and don't see any code compliance issues with the proposal. the deck is code compliant. there's no requirement for adding more parking, even if you were to add one more unit in this district, you would not need to provide one more parking space so we don't have any experience with the existing parking situation. seems that most of the issues are not related directly to the work that ease in the permit, but more of a private matter about how that curb is used because my understanding is mta will ticket if someone is

blocking the driveway. so if that's the concern, that can be addressed through the mta process. also some of the problem may be attributed to the appellant's to the left of the property. the fact that they're curb cut -- that's the curb cut with the red tip on it. if i could have the overhead. this is one of the appellate's properties. their driveway does not enter on their garage door so that may present to their garage door so that may present some problems with how they access the space. they might be able to does that with the department of public works. we would as look at it to make sure that if it shifted, we'd want to make sure no existing on street parking space would

be impacted by that but that'd be something they could pursue in the future. >> i don't think that helps. you made that illegal space longer. >> the issue is if somebody was blocking their driveway, perhaps centering the driveway on their door would make it easier for them to access their parking space. >> john left already. >> you'll have rebuttal time shortly. >> commissioners, the permit is pretty typical for adding these additional areas. i too reviewed the plans, i didn't see anything unusual. the permit was issued correctly

and hopefully shouldn't be any problems, but if anybody has any questions, but from building i don't think we have any issues. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, then we will have rebuttal. you have three minutes together. >> so glad you got the pictures. there is a portion of the easement in front of my house that was -- i got a permit to paint red because of the people blocking the driveway. since i got that, that has been a deterrent for people to park there because they've been ticketed, they've been towed and so i don't have a problem there . that little piece of easement we're talking about, all i want is maybe a foot or two painted red so that it would deter people from parking that way and getting into my driveway. that's all i'm asking for. it's just that little piece of

ease /-pl. what happens is people don't park their car in their garages. they park across and with that suv that was there, it was a nightmare getting in and out of my house and i'm surprised someone didn't hit me as i was backing out of my driveway. i leave at 5, 4 o'clock in the morning. it's dark outside and i could get blind sided very easily. you saw the pictures, i don't think i'm asking for a whole lot. i'm just /tp-g for a piece of that easement to be painted red. thank you. >> any rebuttal from the permit holders? >> yeah, yeah, that was still your time actually. >> i would like to ex/poupd pound a little bit on the inspector's comment about not

requiring a parking spot. i know there's no law that requires that, but i think it's something we need to think about because in san francisco it's very congested. how can you have four bathrooms and only one parking spot. there's a good chance in the future this property might be rented out to four different individuals and that will impact me and residents living there because the reason why i brought my property back in 2008 was because parking was easy and then also the neighborhood was family or noted. oriented. things are changing and i think because of that there needs to be some rethinking because it's a nightmare finding parking right now so that needs to be taken into consideration and control. >> you have a garage? >> i do have a garage. >> for how many cars? >> one car. >> i block my dad in because i

leave earlier than he does, but i would never block my neighbors, especially if i knew that was their entryway. if you're asking for 2 feet, then definitely no vehicle could park there and i

understand that although i guess you would have to see it from another person's point of view for someone to come home late at night and not find parking maybe on that strip there, i mean, it's difficult. i understand, but i drive a tiny car. there's no reason for me to block anything. i don't have an suv. i have, like, a regular small four door sedan or whatever and i mean, 2 feet is substantial. definitely no car will be able to fit there. and i don't know, with the department requesting maybe they can just even their pavement. i'm not sure what the correct term is, but if that could be done then i don't see what's the problem for anyone really. if you have a two car garage, wouldn't it be easier to have all this space to enter and exit anyway, as opposed to squeezing through a one car

garage amount of space to get through and for both of your vehicles that are parked in there? that's just my personal thought. >> thank you. >> question, go ahead. >> when i read this brief i thought this was about a different issue. >> yeah, i thought -- >> let me finish my question, please. the word of your father's response related to the deck and the light in there and privacy. where did that come from? >> i believe the owners of the homes nearby had specified to him that that was a concern, although, i mean, to me, it's a little ridiculous mainly because their homes are both completely one story above ours. we're not trying to raise

another story or level. we're a two story home trying to have a little deck in the backyard. also, the neighborhood slopes upward so i don't see how that could affect the -- >> well, nobody has raised it tonight. >> i know. there's no brief that talks about it. i was just curious. >> i'm curious as well. >> thanks. >> it was in the appellant's summary as far as the appeal was privacy, light and air. nothing about parking. a: >> it seems as though this case has taken another turn. >> having lived five blocks away and probably passing by your property on a regular basis. i also have a space that's 6 or 7 feet in front of two houses and i often have to deal with that situation as well.

evidently you're going to be a good neighbor to these folks because evidently they're not appealing what they said they were appealing at this point, right? so -- okay. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i frequently call 311 for driveway blockage. i live in bruno heights. it's very hard to get around people. it's aggravating, but when they're over that line, i'm getting it towed and that's what we do. that's our only recourse. i also don't feel inclined to grant this appeal. i think the basis that was presented was that on the papers was not presented and i think it more as a private matter. >> do you know the total mta

requires you to open your garage to show them that it's a available parking space. i have to do that all the time and i don't drive an suv. that's just what we live with in san francisco >> i had a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. >> thank you. mr. match match. pacheco. >> on that motion from the vice president to up hold this permit on the basis it was properly issued, commissioner fung. >> i. >> commissioner hwang. >> i. >> president lazarus. >> i.

>> honda. >> i. >> the vote is five to zero, the vote is upheld on that basis. thank you. >> item number nine was withdrawn so we'll now call item number 10, appeal 14-020, sunny moon versus the building of inspection. protesting the issuance on january 23 to j and l development of an alteration permit. >> my name is sunny moon.

i'm a little nervous. >> relax, take a break. >> i have a little bit of an anxiety issue. sorry. i have -- okay, i live on bruno hill and my house is located behind 47 prospect avenue and last year, march 2013 there was some major reworking and regrading of the rear yard at 47 prospect. >> could you speak up more? a little bit closer. take a deep breath. >> there was some major reworking and regrading of the yard on 47 prospect where large quantities of dirt were moved

3 feet down and i think 5 feet deep in and it was all pushed up and then there was also some room in the sidewalk -- >> i'm sorry . >> the sidewalk was moved up as well. this is my house on 666 win field so this is from 49 prospect, which is their next door neighbor. so this is the reworking of the soil and the grade. so by july 2013, they've added a new deck, they added a new secondary retaining wall.

they elevated their original retaining wall, which was lower and now it's 7 feet higher. they have built this oversized deck that's really close to my property, only 1 inch away from it. and i've discovered it at on open house when the house was up for sale. this is my tenant's unit right here and you can see it's on the same level. >> i'm having a hard time with your picture. >> i'm sorry. okay. so this is on almost the same level as my tenant's unit and this deck is oversized and it's really high and it's high because the elevation has been increased. >> this is the backyard of 47 prospect? >> correct. >> and so the house is then sort of the closest to us then?

is that where the house is? >> yes. this is the roof right here. >> okay. >> and the view is from 49 prospect. >> okay. >> so from the before and after you see there's been some major soil degrading and reworking. >> i'm going to stop you. the wood on the far right, is that connected to your house? >> yes. that is my tenant's deck. >> okay, thank you. >> a lot of dirt was pushed up to that southeast corner. >> okay. >> okay, so a complaint was filed, an nov was abated and we thought everything was resolved and everything was fine and then in november, 2013, 47 prospect goes up for sale. you know, i'm not opposed for the defendant having a usable rare yard, i just want it to be compliant. i want it safe for all the residents who live in the

neighborhood. you know, i don't want any problems, future problems. yesterday i received an email from defendant's agent correcting the site plan in his original brief he questioned the location

this corroborates they have pushed up the soil and did the deck without permits. the developers -- their solution is to circumvent the permitting process all together and lower the deck and reassemble the height of the deck lower than 30 inches, however, since they did such major manipulation of the soil grade change, i feel like -- doesn't that require a permit to do something like that and then how do you find original grade? i'm asking planning and dbi to determine the original grade before they even put in any new modified deck. i'm just asking for some

compliance and safety. in closing, we're asking to revoke the permit and remove the deck with all its electrical parts, lower the original retaining wall, remove the secondary retaining wall, which in my belief really holds up this oversize deck and just any future deck and landscaping be built, you know, on the original soil grade as determined by dbi and planning. hank you for your consideration. >> do you have any photos from that yard before this work was done? >> this is the only photo i have and -- >> i believe you an one of your -- so there is -- there was no existing deck there? >> there was no existing deck. >> okay. >> yes, no existing deck. and i've been here for five

years, my neighbor has lived next door for 45 years and he has said this was never an existing deck. >> shouldn't be a problem. i think we can get historic pictures from planning or building. >> i want to hand out a current site plan because the original one was incorrect as the appellant has stated so i

wanted to pass this around. >> i feel bad for -- i did research on this property over a number of years and since 2012 it seems life has been nothing but complaints with work without permits so i can totally understand where she's coming from. i'm here now to try to resolve this and make it whole for my client. the retaining walls, they were engineered and by having them and mr. white head will speak

more on that part. he's an engineer and a civil engineer. and so by having those retaining walls, actually what they do is they will reduce erosion and make the soil more stable so to reduce them down just doesn't seem the way to do this. secondly, to -- on the -- we'd like to take the deck apart, dismantle the deck and level the soil out to a place where we will have a grade of hopefully less than 5 percent as the planning code says that -- to make it a usable area, you need to have less than 5 percent slope so we'd like to achieve that. and then reinstall the deck, but not bring it back the way it was before, but 2 feet back from the back of her property and also the neighbor to the south.

at that time what we'll do is take it 30 inches, which is the required building permit and again, you know, it's a quality of life issue. the -- they have a very small backyard and they'd like to be able to use that space so i'm hoping we reinstate this permit, but with conditions that it be revised to address the location of the deck, 30 inches above grade and level the grade out so we can put a deck back in that area. and that pretty well closes my comments on this. >> i have a question. so the clients you're representing now -- the clients are performed the work or purr chased the home and did the work.

>> it was in foreclosure. >> they're not the ones that done the work? >> no. they just want to get it over and done with. >> miss white head. >> i have a disclosure. i've done with the engineer that's going to speak, but it should not affect -- >> good evening commissioner and presidents. i'm a registered engineer here in the state of california. i'm a registered geo /kebg geo technical engineer. i've seen many projects in

bruno heights area and the city. i made a inspection of the site recently and observed the construction, which considered low retaining walls, not exceeding 3 feet and arranged in a terrace formation which is common for radar development in san francisco for use of the land. [inaudible] bedrock. the construction i see today with review of the plans is safe and of no danger, to the neighborhood or to the appealed property. that's all i have today and i'm very ready for any questions. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> commissioners, the permit that's under appeal, was a permit that was taken out to secure abatement on a retaining wall this retain /-l wall is to replace old retaining wall. and permit was taken out january of 2014 and was suspended on and we go from [inaudible] with the department regarding construction in the

rear yard without the required building permit. new deck and stairs at rear of property. deck greater than 30 inches above grade. one retaining wall in rear yard in excess of 48 inches. obtain a building permit for permitted construction in the rear yard. obtain required inspections to abate this complaint. so they applied for this permit and then got the permit issued and miss moon had been down at the department a few days when i was working on it so i became familiar with the address and property and i never actually went to the property. i'm not the senior inspector for that, but i known the senior building inspector. and i thought there was something just amiss about this whole permit that had been taken out to talk about this existing deck and existing conditions and miss moon had

shown -- been pretty adamant that there was no existing deck so we opened a new complaint ourselves etch though the permit was suspended and on the 18th of february, 2014, after this permit's been suspended and i don't think this notice of violation was in the brief, but i go ahead and read it out anyway. it appears information used to obtain the permit for the yard was incorrect. the grade was raised before in/stalglation of the deck and retaining wall is not in the same height or location. deck was not existing, this permit is currently under suspension by the board of appeals pending the outcome of a hearing. no work may take place until this matter has been resolved. we don't normally do this, but

i think it was clear that someone had come into the building department after we noticed the violation last year and any conditions begot the permit through i noticed that but anyway, the permit got issued, but as you can tell, the permit is not existing. there was no existing deck so it's not a good permit in my mind. now, i do think they can resolve it. probably they need to get together and figure out what needs to happen, but certainly from a dbi point of view, when you come down there and put existing conditions down there on a set of plans, it doesn't help anybody because it just makes the problem worse especially when you have a neighbor like this who, you know, she just wants to protect her property so i mean, we do have a permit that does have some problems and it is -- we

do see a lot of these landscaping projects in rear yards. and the decks if they're below 30 inches or more, you don't even need a building permit for that. there was a slope going back -- there are photos going back of a retaining wall. if we could determine where the existing grade was and then if they proceed from that point on a different permit maybe they could get what they want in the rear yard so that's my opinion anyway. >> so anything less than 30 inches does not require a permit? >> nope, not for a deck. from the lowest point, you know, so -- >> so for, like, a terrace yard. >> yeah. >> the exposed portion -- >> you'd have to use the high point from 30 inches. >> okay.